Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Don't Panic" - What Defines Urgency Before the Court?

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Unevenplayingground
    replied
    Baldclub and wife#2, a lot of great points, I appreciated reading them.

    The military is a unique career choice, of course there are many others. I don't know if people so much expect special treatment, but I think they should expect to not have their law abiding, tax paying, career choice held against them.

    Anyway, this discussion appears to have ended.

    Leave a comment:


  • wife#2
    replied
    Specifically, I did not get involved in the debate because I felt I had nothing to add to it. Both sides were making the points that I was thinking myself. I at no time felt that any military member was suggesting that they should get special treatment. I would love to see the military member's post's that suggest this though, that Tayken is referencing (past and present). I believe the argument was simply the uniqueness of military life and believe that this was demonstrated. Also that others who are not military may also encounter similar circumstances, but generally, different to the vast majority of society.
    Do I think military should get special treatment on custody and access? Yes and no. No they should not simply because they are military. But yes to them and ANYONE who works shifts, is sent away to work and all the other issues discussed already on this thread. My feeling is, the purpose, or so I thought, of family court is to mimick what would have happened as closely as possible had the family stayed intact. So if you chose to have a child with someone who works military or anyone who works in the conditions discussed, then I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that the child move and spend a few years in one province, then a few years in another. If it is ok to do this to children in intact families, why is it suddenly not in a child's best interest when there is a divorce? This would have been the reality for the child if the parents were together, so why not now? Just my thoughts, since you asked.

    Leave a comment:


  • wife#2
    replied
    Some advice: Don't use sarcasm before a judge. They don't find it "funny".

    So when I say 'my step son is under emotional distress', you ask me if I am a health professional. As you are clearly commenting on what all judges ('they') will think, I think it is fair to ask, are you a judge? What is your background of study to comment on what all judges would find funny or not funny? You very frequently ask it of others, but continue to avoid the question yourself. It is somehow 'relevant' to you when you ask, but in your mind, not relevant to others.
    Judges are human. In my limited experience in family court, and only by what my husband and his lawyer (who is a friend I know personally) tell me, judges laugh, lawyers and judges joke, yes, in court. No, its not all fun and games, but humor is used and accepted. My husband has always come home from court with a funny story of something the judge said or something the lawyer said to the judge. Judge laughed. No big deal.

    Leave a comment:


  • baldclub
    replied
    Originally posted by Tayken View Post
    There are few "commonalities" between us possibly other than gender.
    Tayken my friend, I have been to places where people have done unspeakable things to each other, all in the name of differences. In my three tours in that part of the world, I really didn't see those differences as unsurmountable as they stated. Furthermore, they shared a lot more in common than they would ever admit to. A shame and a weak reason for the death.

    Let me tell you, we have a ton of commonalities between us, other than gender.

    This is my last post here on this topic.

    Leave a comment:


  • baldclub
    replied
    Originally posted by Tayken View Post
    Improve an argument. Often "military" people coming to this forum with expectations that their service should give them special rights before the Superior Court of Justice. That their time spent, employment and signing of an employment contract with an employer should grant them "special consideration".
    I can't specifically deal with how often 'military' people come to the forum with those special rights as you say, because such an investigation of facts is not very interesting to me. I would highly doubt such a position would be taken as it is contrary to the strong relationship we soldiers, airmen and airwomen, and sailors have with duty and service to our country/society.

    Originally posted by Tayken View Post
    It is often hard to explain the need for "relevancy" on their argument before a civil court where both parties are equal in standing and a decision is made on a balance of probability and not whom employs them.
    Yes, everyone is supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law, no doubt about that. However, as there are many, many factors that paint one case differently than another, and the law itself is vague or not specific in some respects ('the best interest of the child', spousal support). Cases need to be analysed on a case by case basis.

    And what has been argued to you in this post is the fact that military families exist in a very different set of conditions compared to most of society. The point that was brought up was not that military personnel need laws twisted in their favour, but to answer your initial question earlier in your posts:

    Originally posted by Tayken View Post
    The real hard question... moving parents never answer is why move? Why move if it is going to impact the child's access to you? Is *your life* that much more important than *your relationship* with the child?
    The facts surrounding the uniqueness of military service was presented to you by the relevance of the study:

    Family Resilience: An Annotated Bibliography ", which you can find http://cradpdf.drdc.gc.ca/PDFS/unc78/p530519.pdf

    Leave a comment:


  • Tayken
    replied
    Originally posted by baldclub View Post
    No feedback is required seemingly in her opinion. Are you really looking to improve an argument or maybe just argue for argument's sake?
    Improve an argument. Often "military" people coming to this forum with expectations that their service should give them special rights before the Superior Court of Justice. That their time spent, employment and signing of an employment contract with an employer should grant them "special consideration".

    It is often hard to explain the need for "relevancy" on their argument before a civil court where both parties are equal in standing and a decision is made on a balance of probability and not whom employs them.

    Originally posted by baldclub View Post
    Not sure her cheer-leading is getting us further from a conclusion then the constant back and forth. Any opinions on my doubt?
    That is because we have put out the arguments in the the debate. You have your opinion, I have mine. The court will order appropriately in accordance with the Family Law Rules and existing jurisprudence in support of or against the argument presented.

    Originally posted by baldclub View Post
    Not sure how to read that statement. At first impression, I agree with you that people need to be totally rational in their arguments for the best interest of the children. However, I have a lingering sense that your statement might be pointed at specific people here, and I'm not sure how constructive that kind of direction would be.
    Actually, the arguments should be rationalized to assist the justice in making a determination on the best interests of the children. Two parties who have entered the public court system have requested a justice make the ultimate decision on custody and access.

    You can have all the "lingering senses" you want.

    Good Luck!
    Tayken

    Leave a comment:


  • Tayken
    replied
    Originally posted by baldclub View Post
    Well Sigmund Freud, it was just funny to me that you thought I was going to spill the beans and diss the military; and you actually felt the need to warn me of taking such a position.
    Thank you for the negative complement but, I am no "Sigmund Freud" at all. Your attempt at "sarcasm" is noted.

    Think Sarcasm is Funny? Think Again | Psychology Today

    What’s more, since actions strongly determine thoughts and feelings, when a person consistently acts sarcastically it usually only heightens his or her underlying hostility and insecurity. After all, when you come right down to it, sarcasm is a subtle form of bullying and most bullies are angry, insecure, cowards.
    Originally posted by baldclub View Post
    I've got plenty of time in the military and in life to not worry about crossing that kind of line, it was simply funny. That's why it was funny to me that you actually warned me and I was expressing that smile you put on my face when I read that. So I'm high conflict because I laughed out loud at your warning? Another smiley face.
    See my above link and quote...

    Originally posted by baldclub View Post
    Well, you can bet that I will be representing myself with relevant facts and professionalism in court, everything is centred around the children's best interest and case law. A lot of my focus actually comes from your more positive posts.
    That is unfortunate for your case that you are depending on case law that I provide. I highly recommend you retain a qualified barrister and solicitor to represent you in the Superior Court of Justice.

    Originally posted by baldclub View Post
    Also, trying to befriend a person is a technique to reduce conflict by putting oneself at their level and showing that there are commonalities. Maybe your analysis is over analysis?
    There are few "commonalities" between us possibly other than gender.

    Originally posted by baldclub View Post
    Sometimes one's arguments are "laughable". I've read here on the forum that people posting here should have "thick skin". My "haha" is a simple response to your suggestion, nothing more nothing less, definitely not an attempt to "generate conflict where no conflict should exist".
    And the purpose of this response is?

    Originally posted by baldclub View Post
    My understanding from posts here on the forum and reading CanLII is that while judges will raise a brow when presented with attempts to generate conflict, they go right back to what is concretely proposed in the children's best interest and take it from there.
    Actually, depending on how much conflict and the frivolity of the argument presented the judge will weigh in their custody and access decision the impact that the person in question (the conflicted ones) impact to the ability to joint parent and share equal residency.

    Originally posted by baldclub View Post
    Judges are so weary of all the bs, but I wished they would take more action to prevent it. My experience at a settlement conference over a year ago was that all it took were a few unsubstantiated accusations from my ex, with no burden of proof, and I was not allowed to increase the children's access to me although living five blocks from their school after material changes in circumstances. Well, the judge asked for the OCL's involvement but I'm still 20 months since any resolution.
    You are not barred from bringing forward a motion to resolve temporary issues. As often stated on this site by not just me but, many others, a Conference is a mediated solution and no justice can make an order on a substantive issue. You have to bring that to MOTION or to TRIAL.

    Your expectations of what can be done in a Settlement Conference by a justice is puzzling considering the amount of time spent on this site.

    Originally posted by baldclub View Post
    I've read what Mr. Eddy has to say and I take note. However, I don't see my comments at all as "high conflict" based on your couple of citations of Mr. Eddy and Psychology Today.
    You can interpret the materials any way you want. Hopefully you take the advice of Mr. Eddy and other

    Originally posted by baldclub View Post
    P.S. The "Sigmund Freud" comment was sarcasm yes, the lowest form of humour. I urge you not to take offense to it. However, it is simply an attempt to highlight the overly analytical response you've demonstrated in some of your arguments. And it reminds me of my ex who claimed I was overly analytical, so maybe we share more in common my friend than we know.
    Just wait to see how a judge writes up your upcoming trial decision and the analytical review against Rule 24 of the CLRA that will come as a result. It makes my "analytic" light in comparison.

    Also, I don't take offence to much. But, thank-you for admitting against interest that your intent was to leverage sarcasm a tool often leveraged by high conflict people to solicit an emotional response.

    Some advice: Don't use sarcasm before a judge. They don't find it "funny".

    Good Luck!
    Tayken

    Leave a comment:


  • baldclub
    replied
    Originally posted by Tayken View Post
    Nope, it is more "cheer-leading" but, I did ask for relevant feedback. For which none has been provided. Always looking to improve an argument in a debate that is all.
    No feedback is required seemingly in her opinion. Are you really looking to improve an argument or maybe just argue for argument's sake?

    Originally posted by Tayken View Post
    To demonstrate that they are an active participant and not an negative advocate they can simply provide a good and solid counter argument. Cheer-leading on an argument doesn't really benefit the development of the argument and leading it to a conclusion.
    Not sure her cheer-leading is getting us further from a conclusion then the constant back and forth. Any opinions on my doubt?


    Originally posted by Tayken View Post
    Too bad for some of those people your theory doesn't apply the same logic to their escapades before the Family Courts as well.
    Not sure how to read that statement. At first impression, I agree with you that people need to be totally rational in their arguments for the best interest of the children. However, I have a lingering sense that your statement might be pointed at specific people here, and I'm not sure how constructive that kind of direction would be.

    Leave a comment:


  • baldclub
    replied
    Originally posted by Tayken View Post
    Some observations to comments made and analysis with supporting clinical evidence.

    I have highlighted for everyone in red the attempt to create an emotional reaction by "laughing". This is a common pattern of behaviour for which often highly conflict people attempt to use to generate an emotional response in an argument.
    Well Sigmund Freud, it was just funny to me that you thought I was going to spill the beans and diss the military; and you actually felt the need to warn me of taking such a position. I've got plenty of time in the military and in life to not worry about crossing that kind of line, it was simply funny. That's why it was funny to me that you actually warned me and I was expressing that smile you put on my face when I read that. So I'm high conflict because I laughed out loud at your warning? Another smiley face.

    Originally posted by Tayken View Post
    Those who are not trained in identifying conflict patters of speech and writing are often triggered by personal attacks like this. It is a common pattern of behavior deployed by negative advocate solicitors against unrepresented litigants. For the most part in my honest opinion, based on my personal observations of oral arguments before the SCJ it is quite a successful technique to demonstrate the other party (unrepresented) as overly emotional and gain attention to their arguments no matter how irrelevant they are.
    Well, you can bet that I will be representing myself with relevant facts and professionalism in court, everything is centred around the children's best interest and case law. A lot of my focus actually comes from your more positive posts.

    Originally posted by Tayken View Post
    Furthermore, one of the defense mechanisms of the highly conflicted is to attempt to "befriend" the other person counter to their argument. Not sure for what grounds the person in question would considering me a "friend". Or is the poster in question attempting to use similar terminology that barristers use before the court under professional courtesy?
    Also, trying to befriend a person is a technique to reduce conflict by putting oneself at their level and showing that there are commonalities. Maybe your analysis is over analysis?

    Originally posted by Tayken View Post
    For those who have spouses and opposing counsel that try to state that the argument you are presenting is "laughable" take note. In the materials presented by experts such as Mr. William Eddy these are key elements for which these experts track in responding arguments before the court. They collect them up and then present them back as counter evidence to the person in question (and often negative advocate solicitors) attempts to generate conflict where no conflict should exist.
    Sometimes one's arguments are "laughable". I've read here on the forum that people posting here should have "thick skin". My "haha" is a simple response to your suggestion, nothing more nothing less, definitely not an attempt to "generate conflict where no conflict should exist".

    My understanding from posts here on the forum and reading CanLII is that while judges will raise a brow when presented with attempts to generate conflict, they go right back to what is concretely proposed in the children's best interest and take it from there.

    Judges are so weary of all the bs, but I wished they would take more action to prevent it. My experience at a settlement conference over a year ago was that all it took were a few unsubstantiated accusations from my ex, with no burden of proof, and I was not allowed to increase the children's access to me although living five blocks from their school after material changes in circumstances. Well, the judge asked for the OCL's involvement but I'm still 20 months since any resolution.

    Originally posted by Tayken View Post
    Hopefully this link to the pages from Google Books works as it brings you right to what I am talking about with regards to Mr. Eddy.
    I've read what Mr. Eddy has to say and I take note. However, I don't see my comments at all as "high conflict" based on your couple of citations of Mr. Eddy and Psychology Today.


    P.S. The "Sigmund Freud" comment was sarcasm yes, the lowest form of humour. I urge you not to take offense to it. However, it is simply an attempt to highlight the overly analytical response you've demonstrated in some of your arguments. And it reminds me of my ex who claimed I was overly analytical, so maybe we share more in common my friend than we know.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tayken
    replied
    Originally posted by baldclub View Post
    No, it's pretty clear I would say.
    As clear as your argument before the Superior Court of Justice which by your own admission was "shushed" by a Justice in Oral Arguments in a past admission against interest in another posting to this message board?
    Last edited by Tayken; 11-12-2012, 11:08 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tayken
    replied
    Originally posted by baldclub View Post
    How is it that she is clearly "unable" to provide that information? Because she doesn't feel the need to present to you why she approves of her support for my post? By stating her support for my post, you feel she is actually generating conflict?
    Nope, it is more "cheer-leading" but, I did ask for relevant feedback. For which none has been provided. Always looking to improve an argument in a debate that is all.

    To demonstrate that they are an active participant and not an negative advocate they can simply provide a good and solid counter argument. Cheer-leading on an argument doesn't really benefit the development of the argument and leading it to a conclusion.

    Originally posted by baldclub View Post
    Maybe some people don't feel the need to explain further what for them is obvious, and furthermore entangle themselves in the vicious circle of arguing for arguing sake.
    Too bad for some of those people your theory doesn't apply the same logic to their escapades before the Family Courts as well.

    Good Luck!
    Tayken

    Leave a comment:


  • baldclub
    replied
    Originally posted by Tayken View Post
    Just asking for feedback as to what elements of the argument you felt were "well said" that is all. Clearly you are unable to provide that information. It would be helpful in addressing the argument presented if you wanted to actually contribute versus generate conflict in a manner such as this.

    Good Luck!
    Tayken
    How is it that she is clearly "unable" to provide that information? Because she doesn't feel the need to present to you why she approves of her support for my post? By stating her support for my post, you feel she is actually generating conflict? Maybe some people don't feel the need to explain further what for them is obvious, and furthermore entangle themselves in the vicious circle of arguing for arguing sake.

    Leave a comment:


  • baldclub
    replied
    Originally posted by wife#2 View Post
    If any other member of this forum is in anyway unclear what 'well said' means directed at a poster, directly under his post, I would be happy to explain. I was also unaware that one could not comment on an on going debate if they were not directly involved in the debate itself.
    No, it's pretty clear I would say.

    Leave a comment:


  • baldclub
    replied
    Originally posted by Tayken View Post
    What in particular was "well said"? Just curious, as you have chosen to provide a blanket opinion without any contribution to the discussion.
    I'm pretty sure she likes the whole comment, Tayken!

    Leave a comment:


  • Tayken
    replied
    Originally posted by wife#2 View Post
    If any other member of this forum is in anyway unclear what 'well said' means directed at a poster, directly under his post, I would be happy to explain. I was also unaware that one could not comment on an on going debate if they were not directly involved in the debate itself.
    Just asking for feedback as to what elements of the argument you felt were "well said" that is all. Clearly you are unable to provide that information. It would be helpful in addressing the argument presented if you wanted to actually contribute versus generate conflict in a manner such as this.

    Good Luck!
    Tayken

    Leave a comment:

Our Divorce Forums
Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
Working...
X